Ask me anything about the Cambridge undergrad maths degree

Hoping to bring this really useful thread a little back on track - what advice do you have for someone in quite a strange situation?I can't really comment on the revision side of things, since I did completely pure for Part II. In your position, I think I'd work through some IB questions - not necessarily stressing if you can't do them, but at least getting a picture of what you "should" know after part IB (and how it compares with what you do know).

As far as number of courses: it really depends what your "alpha conversion rate" is, so to speak. Come exam time, I was only doing about 8 courses (and some of them in a "hope an easy question comes up I can pick up an alpha on" sense rather than anything serious), but that was still enough for a very high first.

On the negative side, you have to also consider the probability that you'll want to drop some of those courses. For me, Part II was definitely the year when I started finding courses I 'bounced' on and got nowhere with - it was a bit of a shock after Part IB.

Certainly in my day, the CATAM material wasn't that difficult (though I'd been programming for years, so maybe had an advantage in that side of things. But I don't recall it involving much programming skill).

I know the mark scheme has changed from my day, but I would think it dangerous to hear "12 alphas for a first" and decide that means "12 alphas and nothing else" for a first. The marks on other questions are important. (e.g. one year I got 14 alphas and 275 marks for my best 2 papers. 14 alphas is more than enough for a first, but 275 marks is low, even though that's only 5 marks off perfection). By the same token, I think 4 alphas by themselves would be nowhere near enough for a 2:2.

Reply 181

twig

Original post by DFranklin

...

Original post by DeanK22

...

Original post by TCW

...

Just wondering, how does the tripos exams compare to the maths exams at Oxford (and possibly imperial and warwick) in terms of style and diffifulty? Is it much alike STEP questions, with only more conceptually difficult content to apply?

Reply 182

OLawyer

12

Original post by TCW

OK. Sorry, can't help you there.

So you've done 3 years of undergraduate maths degree at Cambridge and you cannot solve the equation I give you. Your mum isn't a number that I know of, therefore your mother= your mother! I thought it was pretty straightforward...

Reply 183

DFranklin

18

Original post by twig

Just wondering, how does the tripos exams compare to the maths exams at Oxford (and possibly imperial and warwick) in terms of style and diffifulty? Is it much alike STEP questions, with only more conceptually difficult content to apply?

Opinions vary. Personally I think Tripos questions are a lot more predictable than STEP (they are, after all, trying to test your ability to solve problems you've been taught about, which is somewhat different from STEP). For sure the material is more conceptually difficult.

From what I've seen of the Oxford exams, they're not that different from the Cambridge ones. I did feel there was a gap between O/C and W/I, but I haven't seen that many papers from the latter two to compare. (And from what I saw of Imperial's papers, the material was not particularly easy, but it was very predictable from year to year).

Reply 184

TCW

OP

7

Original post by Mathmo

Hoping to bring this really useful thread a little back on track - what advice do you have for someone in quite a strange situation?

I'm going back to do my part II this october, after a six year break since part IB. So as you can imagine, there's not a lot of knowledge left in my head. I've decided to revise methods and statistics, as between them they're the prerequisites for seven courses next year - enough for me to do.

My aim is to do as well as possible - at least a 2.1 - but given my large knowledge gap I will need to be extra efficient to do this.

What advice do you have about Ib revision, e.g. should I do exam questions and proofs, or is this a waste of time seeing as I'm not revising for the exam itself? Also what advice do you have about appied/statistical part II courses, and how to prepare for them and learn them well enough to nail the exam? I don't want to pick any that require massive amounts of previous knowledge, or that require me to memorise a huge volume of material. And finally how realistic is it to get 4 alphas in Catam? Because that's basically a guaranteed 2.2 in itself, so I'll just need to aim for two alphas per exam paper to get a first.

Thanks in advance!

Interesting scenario! If I were you, I'd actually jump straight into the Part II courses and start wading through some of them. You'll find that if you get stuck then you can then refer to 1B notes (preferably the more recent ones). This will help target your 1B revision.

With regards to courses and exam technique I made a long post a couple of pages back regarding this that might be quite useful for you since you're interested in applied/stats. Catam is well worth doing, and I think that the new projects come out sometime in the summer, so keep an eye out on the Catam website and try a couple of them before you start in October if you can.

Good luck!

Reply 185

TCW

OP

7

[QUOTE="OLawyer;32640457"]

Original post by TCW

OK. Sorry, can't help you there.

So you've done 3 years of undergraduate maths degree at Cambridge and you cannot solve the equation I give you. Your mum isn't a number that I know of, therefore your mother= your mother! I thought it was pretty straightforward...

Thanks. I've been enlightened. As I've said before, Cambridge maths is overrated.

Reply 186

IrrationalNumber

12

Original post by DFranklin

Opinions vary. Personally I think Tripos questions are a lot more predictable than STEP (they are, after all, trying to test your ability to solve problems you've been taught about, which is somewhat different from STEP). For sure the material is more conceptually difficult.

From what I've seen of the Oxford exams, they're not that different from the Cambridge ones. I did feel there was a gap between O/C and W/I, but I haven't seen that many papers from the latter two to compare. (And from what I saw of Imperial's papers, the material was not particularly easy, but it was very predictable from year to year).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/postgrad/prospective/r_u_ready/self_evaluation/

I'd disagree with the gaps you've listed, I think there's a big gap between cambridge to oxford but oxford's exam papers feel similar in difficulty to Warwick's.

Reply 187

around

13

Original post by IrrationalNumber

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/postgrad/prospective/r_u_ready/self_evaluation/

I'd disagree with the gaps you've listed, I think there's a big gap between cambridge to oxford but oxford's exam papers feel similar in difficulty to Warwick's.

Wow, Complex Analysis and Rings and Modules are 3rd year courses at Warwick? Riemann Surfaces is in 4th year (I realise it's hard to do this before Complex Analysis)?

I thought they'd be earlier than that (especially Complex Analysis).

Reply 188

IrrationalNumber

12

Original post by around

Wow, Complex Analysis and Rings and Modules are 3rd year courses at Warwick? Riemann Surfaces is in 4th year (I realise it's hard to do this before Complex Analysis)?

I thought they'd be earlier than that (especially Complex Analysis).

Bear in mind that course names don't give away exactly what material is studied. Complex analysis includes things like Schwarz-Pick and an introductory complex analysis module (Vector analysis) is covered in the first term of the second year. Rings and groups are covered in algebra 2, although I don't think I have done a course which requires any knowledge of modules throughout my time at Warwick.

Oh, I should also add that third years on the MMath used to be required to do two fourth year courses, which meant that things like manifolds and algebraic topology tended to be done by third year students.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 189

DFranklin

18

Original post by IrrationalNumber

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/maths/postgrad/prospective/r_u_ready/self_evaluation/A while back RichE posted some Oxford first year analysis stuff, and it was essentially the same difficulty as the Cambridge material. The Warwick 1st year stuff is clearly significantly easier.

The 2nd year material you posted again seems a fair bit easier than you would see at Cambridge, I'd say the Oxford stuff is a little easier than Cambridge, but at the same time you're probably expected to get more questions out than at Cambridge. Again, I'd say the C/O gap is much smaller than the O/W gap. (It's also possible I'm completely misunderstanding which year does what in the Oxford case).

There's not much of the 3rd year stuff I feel competent to comment on these days, to be honest. It does look like the gap narrows in general, but I suspect that's more a reflection that I don't really remember much material at that level (so it all looks Greek to me) than anything else.

As always, it's worth remembering that the typical Cambridge mathmo getting a first will probably only get about 50% on each course they are seriously attempting. So although the exams may be harder, it doesn't mean people can actually do these questions with regularity.

I doubt any of the differences matter as much as whether or not you apply yourself to your courses and learn as much as possible.

Overall, I'd trust RichE's judgement on all of this - you might want to ask him for a 2nd opinion.

Reply 190

IrrationalNumber

12

Original post by DFranklin

A while back RichE posted some Oxford first year analysis stuff, and it was essentially the same difficulty as the Cambridge material. The Warwick 1st year stuff is clearly significantly easier.

This Warwick first year analysis stuff appears to be tested at the end of the first term. The questions for the final term are a fair bit harder than this, but I can't show you (there is enough easy stuff that a first is definitely achievable but there are some questions which I doubt under exam conditions a single person got)

There's not much of the 3rd year stuff I feel competent to comment on these days, to be honest. It does look like the gap narrows in general, but I suspect that's more a reflection that I don't really remember much material at that level (so it all looks Greek to me) than anything else.

I'd say that the third year Warwick stuff is mostly bookwork (at least the analysis side is). I'm not sure if it's the same for Cambridge or Oxford.

As always, it's worth remembering that the typical Cambridge mathmo getting a first will probably only get about 50% on each course they are seriously attempting. So although the exams may be harder, it doesn't mean people can actually do these questions with regularity.

Do most Cambridge mathmos focus on only a couple of courses so that they can get alphas, or do they aim to cram lots of courses so that they are covered if one module's questions are particularly difficult? The former strategy would be disastrous at Warwick, whereas the latter seems to be the most popular one. I personally would prefer it if the questions were harder but we were required to understand less material.

I doubt any of the differences matter as much as whether or not you apply yourself to your courses and learn as much as possible.

Agreed.

Overall, I'd trust RichE's judgement on all of this - you might want to ask him for a 2nd opinion.

I suspect he'd be unwilling to comment given his position.

Reply 191

DFranklin

18

Original post by IrrationalNumber

Do most Cambridge mathmos focus on only a couple of courses so that they can get alphas, or do they aim to cram lots of courses so that they are covered if one module's questions are particularly difficult?Certainly not a couple of courses. It would be very unusual to do less than 4, I would think, and you'd probably only do less than 6 if you were resigned to a 2:2 or worse. Around 8 courses is pretty standard (IIRC), much more would again be pretty unusual.

At the "high end", the difference between someone getting 12 alphas and someone getting 24 is generally that the person getting 24 can expect to get an alpha on nearly every question they've covered the material for. It's not that they've covered much more material, but they have a much higher "alpha conversion rate".

In principle, you could do only 4-5 courses and still get a first, but it would leave you vulnerable to particularly hard (or easy) questions. And if you were good enough to pull it off, you're probably good enough to do 7 or 8 courses and get a high (safe) first.

Reply 192

around

13

Original post by DFranklin

Certainly not a couple of courses. It would be very unusual to do less than 4, I would think, and you'd probably only do less than 6 if you were resigned to a 2:2 or worse. Around 8 courses is pretty standard (IIRC), much more would again be pretty unusual.

At the "high end", the difference between someone getting 12 alphas and someone getting 24 is generally that the person getting 24 can expect to get an alpha on nearly every question they've covered the material for. It's not that they've covered much more material, but they have a much higher "alpha conversion rate".

In principle, you could do only 4-5 courses and still get a first, but it would leave you vulnerable to particularly hard (or easy) questions. And if you were good enough to pull it off, you're probably good enough to do 7 or 8 courses and get a high (safe) first.

I got all my alphas from 8 courses (in part IB, for what it's worth) + coursework.

Reply 193

Slumpy

16

Original post by around

I got all my alphas from 8 courses (in part IB, for what it's worth) + coursework.

I think all my alphas in IB came from CATAM+3 courses :p:

Reply 194

Raiden10

17

Original post by IceWater

Hmm to be honest... if you can't visualise it, or understand it, doesn't that by definition mean that you're just "manipulating symbols".

What do you think makes people better at mathematics than someone else... I've always thought it was a better understanding of fundamental concepts...

Firstly there is a lot to be said for "getting used to something". For example, you get used to the fact that there are often uncountably many "pathological" gadgets, and only countable many "nice" ones, for example irrational numbers, nowhere differentiable functions, and various analytical objects.

Secondly, cleverness, hard work. Not hating it helps too. Some people love calculating (i.e. computing an answer which is a number or numerical expression or function) and don't like proofs. Not a bad topic for a new thread, but hopeless to answer really. A linear combination of cleverness and hard work is the best bet.

Anywho, I just remembered this is a thread about Cambridge, and I have never even set foot in Cambridge(shire!).

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 195

TheMagicMan

15

Original post by Extricated

I asked him this earlier, he got 11A*s at gcse and 100 UMS in 12 maths modules, his lowest maths score being 91/100.

If this guy thinks he is 'average' at cambridge with those kind of scores ( i mean, 100 UMS IN 12 MODULES), i seriously doubt my ability to go there. Cambridge maths just seems out of reach when guys like this are 'average' ffs

A guy from my school finished first overall in Part IA last year and he got somewhat less than brilliant UMS.

However, he did claim to have fully solved 22 questions in step II and III combined

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 196

IrrationalNumber

12

Original post by TheMagicMan

However, he did claim to have fully solved 22 questions in step II and III combined

22 questions?! I don't think most graduates could even come close to that in 6 hours.

Reply 197

harr

15

I've been told that UMS is a very good indicator of tripos performance. I got in with Bs in a couple of modules though.

Original post by Mathmo

And finally how realistic is it to get 4 alphas in Catam? Because that's basically a guaranteed 2.2 in itself, so I'll just need to aim for two alphas per exam paper to get a first.

It's certainly not trivial, but I wouldn't say it's hugely difficult either. Few people I know managed it, though there are some possible explanations for that.

4 alphas and nothing else would get you the wooden spoon (unless they decide that without any marks in the exams you shouldn't get that good a class). In the last couple of years you'd have needed a lot of betas to get a first in IB with 12 alphas -- 13 alphas and 10 betas was borderline last year, and the boundary was even higher this year.

People generally underestimate raw marks and betas. Looking at last year's part IB, 5,16 was 62% while 5,6 was a borderline 2.2/3. In last year's part II, 2,7 and 2,9 were borderline 2.2/3 while 3,3 was borderline 3/below.

Edit: Just realised that you're talking about part II. In that case I'd say that, unless they've changed it since last year, 4 alphas is rather unlikely, though 3 is certainly possible.